the Leith employers again contended that the National Board had no jurisdiction in the matter of the dispute, and that the functions of the Board were confined to questions arising directly or indirectly out of the national trimming tariff. It was, however, agreed that negotiations should be reopened between the workers' representatives and the Leith employers in order, if possible, to effect a settlement.

14 On the 10th May, 1924, Mr. Robert Williams, of the National Transport Workers' Federation, Mr. Clatworthy, of the Cardiff, Barry and Penarth Coal Trimmers' Union, and Mr. Hall, of the National Union of Railwaymen, met the Leith employers, who agreed that the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the offer of compensation should be given to the twenty-one men who had been guaranteed permanent employment. The trade union representatives then made an appeal to the men to withdraw their labour voluntarily in consideration of the offer, made jointly by the union and the employers, of £400 from each side, making a total of £800, as compensation for the breach of any obligation the employers had entered into. This offer was rejected by the twenty-one men and a ballot of the trade unionists involved in the dispute was then taken to determine whether they would consent to resume work if the twenty-one men were retained. The result of the ballot was 135 against and 10 in favour of the proposal, and the representatives of the unions then gave notice of a complete stoppage of work in the coal exporting ports of Great Britain on Wednesday, 14th May, 1924. We were informed that this position was reported to the Ministry of Labour. Sir David Shackleton, K.C.B., Chief Labour Adviser, then got in touch with the parties and, in the absence of a settlement, indicated that in view of the serious effect on the national interests of such a stoppage of work the Minister of Labour had decided to set up a Court of Inquiry under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. At his request the trade union representatives agreed to postpone notices to cease work until the result of this Inquiry was made known.

CONCLUSIONS.

15. The rejection of the three nominees and the subsequent cessation of work on 19th March, 1924, were regarded by the men and the employers respectively as definite breaches of the agreement of 3rd March, 1924, but no effort appears to have been made on either side at an early stage to submit the question in dispute to the Local Joint Trimming Committee, as provided for in Clause 4 of the agreement of 30th August, 1923, which was still operative. In our view it is a matter for regret that this step was not taken before precipitate action was decided upon, and if this course had been followed the present crisis might not have resulted.

16. The question of the appointment of charge hands, which was the first cause of the stoppage of work in Leith Docks on 19th March, is no longer the matter in dispute. It is the failure to settle the question of the continued employment of the twenty-one men that prevents a full resumption of work at Leith Docks and threatens to develop into a stoppage of work at the other coal-exporting ports. The employers consider that they are in honour bound to continue to employ them and insist on doing so, while the trade unionists refuse to work along with men whom they look upon as "blacklegs or to agree to admit them as members of their union. This was expressly admitted by Mr. Williams and Mr. Currie, by whom the various aspects of the case were clearly and dispassionately stated. If the twenty-one men leave Leith Docks the strike will ipso facto take end.

The

17. We were not furnished with any very adequate reasons why it was necessary for Kennedy and Co. to give a promise of permanent employment in order to get outside labour. employers were no doubt entitled to secure a nucleus of imported labour. On the other hand, the coal trimmers apparently considered that this was an arrangement whereby the contractor would always be in a position to break a strike, and felt unable to receive the men into their union. Moreover, the twenty-one men would, if admitted, participate in the arrangements for the pooling of earnings of coal trimmers employed in Leith, thus reducing the weekly earnings of the men regularly employed.

18. It is to be kept in mind that the twenty-one men are not experienced coal trimmers; they are miners imported from mining districts in Midlothian. We were informed that the average weekly earnings of the coal trimmers at Leith Docks in 1923 amounted to £5 12s. 6d., so that we can readily appreciate that this trade should prove attractive to men who have been working in and about a coal mine. We understand that no hindrance will be put in the way of the twenty-one men if they agree to return to their usual avocation of mining.

19. It thus appears that the present dispute is purely local; no general question of wages or of material conditions of labour is now involved. The question of the appointment of charge hands was settled by the provisional agreement of 29th March, 1924, the terms of which are, in our view, well calculated to settle all matters originally in dispute. In these circumstances we think that it would be nothing short of a tragedy if the parties to the dispute did not find means of settling it without involving other districts. Various attempts have been made to reach a settlement. We desire to refer only to the recommendations made by a sub-committee of employers and trade union officials, which are referred to in paragraph 12 above, and to say that we think it is regrettable that effect was not given to their suggested terms of settlement.

20. Finally, we desire to express our high appreciation of the valuable assistance which has been afforded to us throughout the Inquiry by our Secretary, Mr. H. C. Emmerson, of the Ministry of Labour.

the dispute at Covent Garden and the threatened stoppage of work at the ports and elsewhere arising therefrom.

Presented to Parliament by
Command of His Majesty.

LONDON:

PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. To be purchased directly from H. M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: Imperial House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 28, Abingdon Street, London, S.W.1; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

or 120, George Street, Edinburgh;

or through any Bookseller.

1924

Price 9d. net.

Cmd. 2244.

RULES OF PROCEDURE.

COVENT GARDEN DISPUTE, 1924.

Whereas by the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, the Minister of Labour is empowered to refer any matters appearing to him to be connected with or relevant to a trade dispute, whether existing or apprehended, to a Court of Inquiry, and to make rules regulating the procedure of any such Court;

And whereas negotiations have been proceeding between the London Fruit, Flower and Vegetable Markets' Association, Limited, the Covent Garden Tenants' Association, Limited, the London and Provincial Fruit Buyers' Association, Limited, and the London and Counties Retail Fruiterers' and Florists' Association, Limited, and the Transport and General Workers' Union on the subject of a claim for revised rates and conditions for Porters employed outside the Floral Hall at Covent Garden Market;

And whereas a stoppage of work occurred on August 14th, 1924:

And whereas a stoppage of work at the ports and elsewhere is threatened;

And whereas such an extension of the dispute would seriously affect the public interests;

Now, therefore, the Minister of Labour, by virtue of the powers vested in him by the said Act, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, appoints the following to constitute a Court of Inquiry:

JOHN A. COMPTON, Esq., K.C. (Chairman).

Sir ANDREW R. DUNCAN.

J. KAYLOR, Esq.

And the Minister of Labour directs that the terms of reference of the Court shall be as follows:

"To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute at Covent Garden and the threatened stoppage of work at the ports and elsewhere arising therefrom, and to report thereon."

And the Minister directs that the following Rules regulating the procedure of the Court shall have effect, that is to say :(1)-(i) Any person may, by notice in writing signed by the Chairman of the Court, be requested to attend as a witness and give evidenc before the Court, or to attend and produce any documents relevant to the subjectmatter of inquiry, or to furnish, in writing or otherwise as the Court may direct, such particulars in relation to the subject-matter of the Inquiry, as the Court may require.